question for Buzsaw (re: the 'Traditional Values Coalition')

quote:

---

If you want to talk about politics in medical spending, compare the history of money spent on breast cancer compared to prostate cancer, even though just about as many men will die from prostate cancer as women will from breast cancer. Note the treatment options available to women and compare that to the treatment options available to men.

---

I agree that the funding for prostate cancer research needs to be increased, amd I'd also like to point out that until relatively recently women's health issues, not just reproductive but general differences from men WRT disease, were generally neglected.We have been studying heart disease in men for decades, for example, but just recently figured out that it is just as common in and manifests differently in women.Not indisagreement with you, but just wanted to point out that the fact that breast cancer gets so much funding compared to prostate cancer should be weighed with the above in mind.

I think that it should be pointed out that breast cancer can strike at a much younger age (as early as the 20's) where prostate cancer rarely strikes anyone younger than 50 and usually much older. In it's more benign form it doesn't have much affect on life expectancy, even left untreated. Also breast cancer also occurs in men, just at a much lower rate than woman.

All good points.I also remember that we have had a simple blood test of some sort to screen for prostate cancer for quite a while now.

Yep, the PSA test. Very effective and it's just another blood test done at a regular physical.

The Big Chill at the Lab
by Bob Herbert

quote:

---

A list of nearly 200 scientific researchers has been compiled and given to federal officials by the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group that goes wild over gay issues and federal funding of research related to human sexuality.

​

The list, which has sent a chill through some researchers, is being used by the coalition and its government allies in attempts to discredit the researchers and challenge or revoke their federal grants. It's a sloppy, dangerous and wildly inaccurate list, put together by people who are freaked out by the content of the studies, and unconcerned about their value.

​

The targeted studies cover a wide range of topics related to health and sexuality, including H.I.V. and AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and adolescent sexual behavior.

​

The Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition is bizarrely fixated on sexual matters. The banner headline on the home page the other day blared, "HOMOSEXUAL URBAN LEGENDS: The Series . . ."

​

The site complained that "nearly $100 million has gone to research many projects which reasonable people, even those with no particular religious or political perspective, would view as prurient."

​

For a right-wing coalition to be hung up on these matters is one thing. But the coalition's list, which includes some of the most respected scientists and institutions in the country, is circulating among members of Congress and was forwarded to the National Institutes of Health, which is responsible for awarding the crucially important grants.

​

"It has a lot of people very nervous," said Dr. Thomas Coates, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the David Geffen School of Medicine at U.C.L.A. "People who have made a career out of this kind of research ? well, when you see your name on a list you wonder what's going to happen to your funding."

​

"The list itself is less important than the context in which it's been generated," said Dr. Judith Auerbach, a vice president of the American Foundation for AIDS Research. Until recently Dr. Auerbach headed the Office of AIDS Research at the National Institutes of Health.

​

"The context is that in recent months there have been a series of specific inquiries to the N.I.H. from Congressional committee members, through their staffs in particular, asking about specific grants and specific grantees based apparently on the content of those grants."

​

The content is usually related to such matters as the AIDS virus, high-risk sexual behavior and other topics linked in some way to sexuality.

​

"Those inquiries come in a very negative tone," said Dr. Auerbach. "And they cast aspersions on the quality and the content of the science ? from someone who doesn't know how to conduct science, and is not a scientist. So the N.I.H. has been put in the position frequently in the last year of having to re-justify research that has already been peer-reviewed, approved and funded."

​

Science has to suffer when the know-nothings come traipsing through the laboratories, infecting the research with their religious beliefs and political ideologies. Andrea Lafferty is the executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, which she says represents more than 43,000 churches.

​

"What makes us unique among all the conservative groups," she said, "is that I believe we truly represent the body of Christ."

​

Ms. Lafferty said she personally gave the list of scientific researchers to Representative Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One of its subcommittees has been reviewing the awarding of grants by N.I.H.

​

"We never said any grant on there was bad," said Ms. Lafferty. But she said she wanted to know why the grants were being funded, and why so many had to do with H.I.V. and AIDS.

​

Ms. Lafferty acknowledged that her group has a problem with homosexuality. "We're concerned that it's a behavior-based lifestyle, that you're not born that way," she said.

​

She insisted that the coalition does not oppose research on H.I.V. and AIDS, but added, "How many times do you have to study something to find out how to stop the spread of AIDS?"

​

The public officials who got their hands on this sinister list could have thrown it in the garbage. Instead, the list is circulating, like an insidious disease, and some scientists are worried that they are not immune.

---

ForbiddenAbove is the website address of the Traditional Values Coalition. The following is cut n pasted from their opening page.Do you agree with this organizattion that these research studies are a waste of money and will teach us nothing with regards to the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's?

quote:

---

Some of the more questionable topics "researched" with taxpayer funds were:

​

* "Trucker Networks, Drug Use and Disease Transmission" -- examines truckers who have sex with other truckers of the same sex ("truck chasers") and female sex workers ("lot lizards" and "CB prostitutes")

​

* "Social Context and HIV Risk Among Mexican Gay Immigrants"-- describe homosexual and bisexual Mexican immigrants incorporation in U.S. gay life; to compare behaviors of homosexual/bisexual immigrants w/ U.S. born counterparts.

​

* "Jealousy: Emotional Reactions and Gender Differences" --"studies jealousy in homosexual individuals."

​

* "Preventing HIV Among Intravenous Drug Users in Yaroslavl, Russia"

​

* "Race/ethnicity and the Meaning of Cohabitation"----to better understand the meaning and implications of cohabitation. "Cohabitation is recognized as an important feature of family formation and children's well-being."

​

* "Gender, Migration, and HIV risks Among Mexicans"---compare sex behaviors of Mexican immigrants in a receiving city in the Southeastern U.S. to sex behaviors in two sending communities in Mexico; analyzes migration related determinants of sexual behaviors; includes analyses of usage of prostitution and gay sex encounters; will provide culturally grounded and reliable information.

​

* "Social Setting and HIV Risk: Opportunities for Prevention"----project claims that no study to date has investigated in-depth the ways in which the bathhouse/sex club environment influences sexual risk behavior.

---

quote:

---

She insisted that the coalition does not oppose research on H.I.V. and AIDS, but added, "How many times do you have to study something to find out how to stop the spread of AIDS?"

---

Suddenly I understand why Rrhain does that horribly annoying "*blink*, you didn't just say that" thing.

quote:

---

She insisted that the coalition does not oppose research on H.I.V. and AIDS, but added, "How many times do you have to study something to find out how to stop the spread of AIDS?"

​

Suddenly I understand why Rrhain does that horribly annoying "*blink*, you didn't just say that" thing.

---

LOL!!Exactly! These people are morons and I cannot understand why on earth Buzsaw feels the need to defend them.My very most favorite quote from the article is this one:"What makes us unique among all the conservative groups," she said, "is that I believe we truly represent the body of Christ."Priceless!!

In fairness, I can understand his wanting to defend them. I don't want to try to speak for Buzsaw, (most times I suspect I don't even know his language) but if he's reacting how I think he is, then I've been there.For a while, I was living in a very, very anti-semitic community. Invariably, wherever I was, the subject would turn to Israel/Palestine. (This a couple years ago, around when the current round of violence began.)Now, I'm the first one to say that anti-Israel does NOT equal anti-semitic. However, in the case of these people, that's exactly what it was. They weren't talking about Israeli policy, they weren't talking about the conditions under which Palestinian people are kept, they were just saying variations on "Look what the Jews are up to this time."So when this would happen, I would find myself defending Israel. Damn, I'm hard against Israel, and I found myself defending them. It didn't matter for a second that they were saying, "No, no, we're not talking about you, just those Jews." It didn't even matter that I'm a non-practicing atheist Jew, (i.e., Jewish only by heritage) and haven't believed in Judaism for over a decade.It was a tough-guy-in-a-bar sort of thing... "you mess with my people... you mess with me." *poke the guy's shoulder*So basically, I found myself defending policies I knew were ridiculous, because I took their statements as a personal assault.I'm not saying that this thread is unreasoning, or that it doesn't bring up the specific reasons you're pissed off. (It's nowhere near the crap I was dealing with as far as "gaw-dammed Jews" goes.) But I can see why, if Buzsaw is in fact taking it as a personal insult, he'd defend it even though the policies being defended make no sense.

First, the claim that prostate cancer is a "manageable" disease is a bit of a misnomer. The reason why doctors tend to use a "wait and see" approach is that there is actually very little that can be done with regard to prostate cancer. If the cancer remains in the prostate, a person can live with it for quite some time but one it does metastasize, prostate cancer is extremely virulent.Second, the PSA test is not nearly as effective as it is made out to be. It helps a lot, yes, but it on its own is not nearly as effective as combination with a rectal exam.Third, there has been no significant advancement in surgical techniques for prostate cancer. It generally still leaves men impotent.Now, does that mean that research into women's health is perfect? Of course not. My entire point is that there is political influence in medical treatment. It was not to get into a "We have it worse!" debate. F'rinstance, why the claim about breast cancer striking early but the presentation that prostate cancer rarely does this? Technically, this statement is true but misleading. Breast cancer also rarely shows up that early. Prostate cancer tends to show up about ten years after breast cancer does (and yet despite this, women still outlive men.) Does that make one "worse" than the other?I get a distinct feeling that there is an undercurrent that if anybody even hints that women might have it better than men, even if only in a single case, then it must be quashed with every single example of how men have it better than women lest it be thought that there is no sexism against women. Attempts to create something like "androcology" are somehow taken as attempts to destroy "gynecology." In short, "women=good/men=bad."Of course, this only deepens my point about the politics of medical care.Alas, with limited resources, choices have to be made. One can only hope there is some synergy. For example, it seems that BRCA2 is associated with prostate cancer, too: 2% of men with early-onset prostate cancer have mutated BRCA2 genes, which is associated with early-onset breast cancer.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

From The-Scientist.comSex, drugs, and NIH
Page Not FoundYou may need to register to see this.Moose

quote:

---

I get a distinct feeling that there is an undercurrent that if anybody even hints that women might have it better than men, even if only in a single case, then it must be quashed with every single example of how men have it better than women lest it be thought that there is no sexism against women. Attempts to create something like "androcology" are somehow taken as attempts to destroy "gynecology." In short, "women=good/men=bad."

---

I see where you are coming from, but let's face it, it simply is the truth that women's health issues unrelated to reproduction, and even some that are reproduction-related, have been historically rather neglected until relatively recently.I could say that you used the prostate cancer example, a possible case of men being neglected due to too much money being spent on breast cancer, as a knee-jerk male reaction to one of the relatively uncommon cases when women get more than men in one part of an area where men have historically gotten the majority of attention.Again, I do not disagree at all that funding for medical research is political. I am just stating that pointing out how women get more than men in this area (where men for many decades have historically "gotten more" than women) seems strange.Women currently live longer partly because we actually tend to go to the doctor where men tend to not go to the doctor. (So, despite this historical glut of men's health research, many men don't ever see the benefits of it through their own reluctance to see a physician) The rest seems to be linked with the general tendency of women to be able to not internalize their stress and emotions and to create support systems for themselves.OTOH, there is a current spike in the number of teenage girls and young women who are smoking, so we may see that lifespan decline.

While I am on board with the whole "knock the TVC" thing, especially with regard to their emotional/religious rationale for not conducting scientific research...I think Dan has a point that aggressively picking on a GROUP tends to create more defenders based on affiliation, rather than for any specific position. I too have seen this in action, whether buz counts as this or not I am unsure.And in truth, isn't it just as silly and idiotic to have had serious research conducted/ results analyzed which come to a conclusion and then have it ignored based on emotional/religious rationale?I guess if scientific research is going to be ignored, at least the Xtian fundies are willing to stop it BEFORE money gets spent. Certain feminist fundies apparently want studies conducted, but ignored (by those debating policy) if the results aren't in their favor.In either case, if emotion is going to rule, I'd rather have my money back.------------------
holmes

I see your point, of course, but the thing is, once the studies are done, if the results are interesting, or result in more questions, or have the potential to affest public health in a significant way, I think that, for the most part, it gets incorporated.Does this happen flawlessly, with everything? Of course not. there are limited funds, and they are not always distributed fairly.Right now, if you are a scientist in the US and can somehow spin your research to be seen as contributing to the understanding of aging, you will pretty much have no trouble getting as much funding as you want, because this country is currently being run by Baby Boomers who are getting to be "a certain age".Oh, and when the "feminist fundies", as you call them, ever get anything remotely close to as much influence in Washington as the Christian Fundies currently have, let me know.We don't even have a fucking ERA, for Chrissakes!

quote:

---

And why did you misspell idiotic?

---

Zhimbo, I'll let you figure that out when/if you ever come to think you've finally made your first mistake.

quote:

---

Buz, I can't for the life of me figure out why you want to defend these folks. Have you read the article? Is the idiocy not blindingly obvious?

---

Maybe it's that these people may have it figured out that this disease would simply go away if people would go back to restraint and obstain from what has always been considered devious and permiscuous sexuality by humanity. When humans begin to behave deviously and worse than brute rabbits, it's not idiotic to think decent folk shouldn't be obliged to fork up ten to fifteen times to heal each of these, the majority who choose to live permiscuously than those unfortunates of other diseases and disorders. Innocents do get caught up into the disease, but are far from being the majority who spread the disease. This's not to mention drug users and again if they think they've gotta disobey the law and live lawlessly, why should ten to fifteen times be spent on them so they can get themselves deathly sick, have us all heal them to go back to their pernicious ways?Those so labeled idiots likely logically figure that if indeed there is a god and harmful practice forbidden by that god becomes rampant among his creatures, that god may have utilized fatal means to erradicate those who deviate from his prescribed habits for those creatures in order to preserve the whole human race.Then if there were no god, isn't it strange that historically, such practice would be considered to be unacceptable and isn't it interresting that these fatal diseases just happen to hit and spread primarily among those practicing this deviency and permiscuousness?You people think evolution has kept the human race humming along for millions of years. Then maybe we needn't work to fix it. Let Mr evolve who's allegedly done so well for those past eons alone to do his work his own wondrous way. Or is it that Mr. Badman Entropy is fiiiiiinally catching up with Mr. Evolve?So no, these aren't idiots. They're folks who want to preserve humanity by responsible conduct rather than pad the pockets of those who find it more profitable to research for cures than to fix the problem.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-05-2003]